Backtracking mere 28 generations (some 600-700 years) into the past should theoretically link all humans on earth to a common ancestor. Of course I understand you meant he's not your close relative. But I had to point out that he is DEFINITELY your relative. The surname similarity suggests that you'd be able to find a common ancestor way before you'd work your way down to the 28th generation.Needless to say, I am equally disappointed with the crooks in our extended family :/

A reply I just sent to a friend. I thought some people might find it entertaining. Names have been changed and removed to protect the innocent........

Why would they fake satellites, you ask? It might help if you looked at the situation from my perspective. I know nasa and other agencies lie about so much, that I have difficulty knowing 1) why and 2) what is real. The general public's position is pretty simple. They can take most things at face value and don't have to speculate about #1,#2 above. I can understand why people like that position.

I just am extremely curious to know what's going on in this world of ours. In that post that I thought would interest you, how nasa can create artificial stars and the adaptive optics technology, we are trying to think of reasons for observations. I was mostly convinced that all satellites were a hoax, but after seeing those videos of 'geostationary' satellites, I'm scratching my head.

For example, at my former job, we made computer chips. A single wafer requires 1-2 months to make, with hundreds of steps and hundreds of different tools/instruments. Each tool requires CONSTANT maintenance. They all have a Preventive Maintenance (PM) schedules to make sure they are functioning and don't destroy the product. The equipment groups are a huge part of the business. This is the basis for my reason thinking satellites are a hoax. I cannot fathom how a complicated instrument can work for so long, in such a hostile environment without being serviced regularly. No company would spend large sums of money on machinery that could break and have to be replaced with such a high probability.Now, this conclusion is supported by all the other evidence of trickery I see. All the NASA lies about the moon and mars missions. Please tell me you don't believe the mars rover story. If you do, please explain to me why we don't have any video of NASA practicing their mars landing procedure? Before they attempted to do what they claim to have done, they would have tested the procedure in our atmosphere to make sure it worked, without parachutes. At the very least, they would have dropped a test lander from a high altitude and the rocket vehicle (forgot the name) that broke its fall. This would have been videoed and available for all to see. They would have been proud to prove it worked. Hundreds of engineers would have taken video to show their families. Look kids at the cool stuff I've been working on! Those kids would have shown all their friends and the videos would go viral. Top secret, you think that would have prevented it? I don't think so. NASA is all about public image. Anything that made them look good would be released.

Where's the video of the ISS grand opening, when they filled it with air and the first astronauts went in? Where's the video of when they tested the space suits in a vacuum chamber on earth, to show how they kept the astronaut alive in a vacuum. And how can someone move their fingers against 14psi differential pressure? Why do they hairspray the female astronauts hair in the ISS, to make it look like zero gravity? Please tell me you don't think that was weightlessness?

T​here's so much more evidence of trickery. Why would they tell the truth about anything, if they could fake it?

Very sound reasoning molodyets. As for satellites and rockets the story goes like this for me - I had no problem accepting most hoaxes after understanding 9/11 but rockets had to work in vacuum. GPS and Sattelite TV "proved" that. But after listening to an interview with Simon where he talked about Satellites and HAARP I found reason to actually read the Rocketry in vacuum thread and research the physics behind it. And now the reverse holds - Rockets have no way to work in vacuum. Physics prove that. Which in turn means there's currently no known way for mankind to put anything into space.

Posting in chatbox because this isn’t a full reply, rather an update. I plan to provide replies to the Rocketry topic and post in the ISIS thread soon. I’m just busy with other work at the moment.

I find it interesting that is ISIS saga has been winding down for the past year and a half, with more territory of theirs being lost month by month. And now Iraq has formally declared a victory against them. There is an obvious gulf between what actually happens in Iraq and other warzones compared to what news is relayed back; no doubt to do with influencing political opinion in the least. My contribution to this topic will concern an experience I had with who was either an actor or a legitimate nutcase terrorist. I also found a pastebin full of handles that were suspended relating to their affiliation with extremism, quite relevant to it.

With every lie there is at least an element of truth to go along; some of these people “seemed” real; perhaps they served the role as the useful idiot by falling hook, line, and sinker to propagate the aura of threat ISIS had.

--- The replies in the rocketry thread, to which I am grateful to receive, will be replied to in due course. Without saying much on the actual science here, I wish to comment on the method and attitude I have personally cultivated since becoming a skeptic.

I recall an adage of sorts here in CF; if at least one apple is a fake, then what’s to say about the rest of them? Bad apples aside, the ability to craft an illegitimate fruit and pass it off as true highly compromises the validity of the rest of the fruit basket. So with media stories the presence of fakery, crafted to such a degree that required an unusual degree of effort, is strong evidence for wholesale fakery throughout a media story- i.e. it’s all fake.

This is, in my opinion, quite a reasonable attitude to have pertaining to fakery relating to the actions of people rather than the matters relating to natural phenomena of the universe. Whereas the former is quite morally and culturally relativistic, shaped by cultural programming, and essentially only existent due to the wastes of human greed, the other is less completely falsifiable. The answers to questions and doubts relating to nature and engineering applications san seem counter-intuitive. For example the Doctor who proposed the benefits of hand washing to prevent infections during operative procedures was branded a madman, and left to die as one.

It is absolutely possible to window dress scientific theory and medicine etc. with skulduggery, yet the method, in my opinion, in sorting the chaff from the wheat requires more care commands a higher barrier to entry (that is in no way exclusionary). Not only is knowledge required but self-restraint in dismissing something/reaching conclusions before the sun has reached noon. Quick conclusions lead to careless mistakes. We do not know everything.

This barrier to entry is only a barrier as such because it is impossible to make informed analysis of certain topics without possessing a candid and bulletproof education in such things relating to it. The consequences of not proceeding with caution? (Recommended reading; the evolution of discoveries relating to the nature of atoms and subatomic particles) The DBA falls thick and sets like snow, hindering efforts because mistakes are made in analysis. Incorrect conclusions are drawn. And fakery takes the upper hand because it won by allowing the window-dressed truth to be swallowed.

Finally I would like to conclude on a hypothesis/ ‘law’ of mine: ‘the propensity for illegitimacy [e.g. fakery, corruption, and misinformation] exponentially increases with the size of any conglomeration of people, ideas, and resources.’

I hope you all have a pleasant weekend.

Edit: spelling

Last edited by FervidGus on Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FervidGus wrote:Finally I would like to conclude on a hypothesis/ ‘law’ of mine: ‘the propensity for illegitimacy [e.g. fakery, corruption, and misinformation] exponentially increases with the size of any conglomeration people, ideas, and resources.’

Dear FervidGus,

I fully back your hypothesis / law - although I'd word it in a far simpler manner :

'The more people involved in a lie, the more this lie will be believed by the masses'.

It has always struck me as incredibly stupid when people (and many do!) argue that:

"You say they faked the atom bomb / Manhattan project? Sheesh, no way! - Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!""You say they faked all of the Moon landings? Sheesh, no way! - Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!""You say they faked the 9/11 terror attack? Sheesh, no way! -Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!"Etc..etc...

Obviously, the more resources (people / money / media) involved in manufacturing a lie - the more this lie will be construed as "fact" by the masses. Simple.

MInd you, I bear no grudge against "the masses" as such - since I'm very much part of the lot (although perhaps a 'perturbed & unstable atomic element' of the same) !

I've pasted the email response from my friend, below. He has some good points, and some not-so-good. I thought one of his statements was hilarious, about how the astronots don't have to bend their fingers much. Have fun constructing a complicated structure without having full dexterity.

I don't want to give the impression that I have little respect for my friend. Quite the opposite. One thing I remember from my christian life: it's easy to repeat the standard justifications.

About Preventive Maintenance, I will accept what you are saying. But once a piece of electronics has been built, and providing it has no moving parts, shouldn’t it continue to work indefinitely? Calculators and digital watches pretty-much work forever.

About satellites, what about their signals? We have TV signals that we can confirm coming from a particular location. By looking at satellite dishes at different latitudes, we can determine they point to a certain height above the equator (22 thousand miles). That is far too high for any aeroplane. Also we have GPS which, while it can’t confirm relativity, can certainly confirm the existence of satellites. Also satellite phones.

ISS: Do an image search on “iss sun transit” and you’ll see the silhouette of it crossing the Sun. Surely that can’t be done with lasers. Those images can be photographed by amateurs with enough cash for the equipment. One of them is said to have a $8000 telescope, so it’s not a government-level operation.

There was probably never going to be a grand opening of the ISS because it was built gradually. First remotely with no people, then with a few astronauts working on it. The first long-term crew was Expedition 1 of three crewmen, and there’s video of their arrival. After that its size grew steadily so no ‘grand opening’ opportunities.

There’s long scenes of ISS weightlessness that we know no way of recreating (wires, zero-G planes, underwater). Sunita Williams may have had a perm before going there which stiffened her outer hair. Actually I believe Indians have rather thick hair and wigmakers prefer it to make wigs. Also I remember there was some blond woman with long hair that didn’t appear hairsprayed.

No I don’t believe the Mars rover. There are too many problems. As you say there’s no video of the Sky Crane being tested other than it lowering its cables. There’s also no proper testing of parachutes. My understanding is that parachutes won’t open above 20,000 feet. The Martian atmosphere is the equivalent of 100,000 feet, and that’s at ground level. Also there’s appearance of the sky, which Mars probably shouldn’t have because of the atmosphere being so thin.

Testing spacesuits should be a trivial matter. High-altitude skydivers use pressure suits where they are in a quarter-atmosphere pressure. The manufacturers would have tested them in a vacuum. You probably can’t bend your fingers much but you probably don’t need to.

"There’s long scenes of ISS weightlessness that we know no way of recreating (wires, zero-G planes, underwater). Sunita Williams may have had a perm before going there which stiffened her outer hair. Actually I believe Indians have rather thick hair and wigmakers prefer it to make wigs. Also I remember there was some blond woman with long hair that didn’t appear hairsprayed."

Hello everyone. I'm not an English speaker so please forgive my mistakes.

I'm from Argentina, last 15th of November an argentinian submarine "dissappeared" in the South Atlantic sea, at the middle way to the Malvinas Islands. It's interesting that the first ships to arrive to the zone was a US Navy ship and a plane of NASA.

Obviously the submarine never appeared but this situation permitted that 18 countries included Rusia, France, Finland and Germany worked in the place.

The United Kingdom reinforced their defences in Malvinas with the same anti-aircraft weapon that Israel uses. They have nuclear bombardiers there and nuclear submarines go there frequently. It's really a great movement of weapons for a country line Argentina. We are not a real threat for UK. So , I'm sure that there's something strange behind all this.

This also remembers me the two missing MALAYSIAN planes. Like in that event I think there was only one submarine here ( Argentina says to have two identical submarines of the type that dissappeared ). I think that all this was perfectly planned many years ago.

I remember the same event may be 15 years ago where a Russian submarine dissappeared, the " KURSK ". And I also remember a movie from the lasts 90s called "THE ABYSS " where a crew from a petrol platform were send to find out a MISSING SUBMARINE.

FervidGus wrote:Finally I would like to conclude on a hypothesis/ ‘law’ of mine: ‘the propensity for illegitimacy [e.g. fakery, corruption, and misinformation] exponentially increases with the size of any conglomeration people, ideas, and resources.’

Dear FervidGus,

I fully back your hypothesis / law - although I'd word it in a far simpler manner :

'The more people involved in a lie, the more this lie will be believed by the masses'.

It has always struck me as incredibly stupid when people (and many do!) argue that:

"You say they faked the atom bomb / Manhattan project? Sheesh, no way! - Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!""You say they faked all of the Moon landings? Sheesh, no way! - Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!""You say they faked the 9/11 terror attack? Sheesh, no way! -Too many people would have to be involved in such a gigantic lie!"Etc..etc...

Obviously, the more resources (people / money / media) involved in manufacturing a lie - the more this lie will be construed as "fact" by the masses. Simple.

Following page 12 of this old NASA news release is a 10 page list of where a typical budget for a rocket went to and it stretches far and wide.

More than 80 per cent of Marshall's Saturn budget, however, is going directly to private industry and other government agencies. And much of the remaining money is awarded outside of NASA to federal agencies for various technical and administrative support.

The following organizations are playing a role in Saturn development. They are listed alphabetically by state, city and name.

ALABAMA : Auburn -- Auburn Research Foundation, Inc., research and study of telemetering and radar systems, and related engineering and fabrication services.

Flabbergasted wrote:By the way, I have always liked the term thrust. The Wicked entry for thrust tells us...

Well, sometimes Wickedpedia just tells it as it is. "Mass of airstream" - that's what it is (i.e. what propels any man-made flying machine).

Don't let anyone tell you that rockets only work by 'recoil effect', folks. Recoil effect is what you get if you're sitting in a rowing boat and start throwing huge stones out of the stern of the boat. It won't propel you much forward. Whereas using your oars to push on the surrounding water will propel you forward at a good rate of speed - with far less effort. But if, by magic, your boat would levitate / and rise above the sea, you will be left rowing against air - and that will not propel you much forward any longer. Much like a rocket that is left without air to propel itself against.

It makes me laugh grimace that MSM use a tangible ‘coin’ to denote something that it actually is not...a bit like TPTB putting pictures of healthy looking chickens or livestock on packaging of foodstuffs...